Global sagittal spinal alignment at cervical flexion in patients with dropped head syndrome

Sagittal Parameters of Spine-Pelvis-Hip Joints in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective

To explore sagittal compensation characteristics, including extra spinal‐pelvic parameters and distal hip parameters, for analysis in middle‐aged to the older patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) without spinal deformity and clarify the fitting relationship between the main sagittal parameters.

Methods

This retrospective single‐center study included 205 patients with LSS in our department from January 2016 to December 2018, including 153 women (74.6%), with an average age of 67.6 ± 7.1 years. Sagittal parameters were obtained on the whole spinal lateral radiograph. Spinal parameters include thoracic kyphosis (TK), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), and lumbar lordosis (LL). Pelvic parameters include pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS). Hip parameters include pelvic rotation (PR) and hip inclination angle (HIA). Spine‐pelvic parameter is spino‐sacral angle (SSA). Sagittal balance parameter is sagittal vertical axis (SVA). PI‐LL, PT, SVA, HIA, and TLK were regarded as primary results, and the others were secondary outcomes. The independent sample t‐test was used to compare gender. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between primary results and secondary results. We take PI‐LL, PT, SVA, and TLK as dependent variables and include relevant factors for analysis.

Results

In the case of gender, PI, PI‐LL, and PT were found smaller in men than women, but TK is greater in men than women (27.3° ± 6.1° vs 23.3° ± 7.7°, p = 0.033). PI‐LL was positively correlated with PT (r = 0.608, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with HIA (r = −0.193, p = 0.010); PT was negatively correlated with HIA (r = −0.289, p < 0.01). As to the relationship between primary and secondary results, HIA was positively correlated with SS and PR (p < 0.01). SVA was positively correlated with SSA (r = 0.341, p = 0.010). The positive influencing factors and risk factors of SVA were SSA, and PI‐LL played a negative regulatory role through proximal TK, the distal PT plays a positive regulatory role. The regulation of PI‐LL was compensated through both TK and PT, with a fitting relationship of PI‐LL = 0.5 × PT − 0.2 × TK.

Conclusion

There was a close interaction among spine‐pelvic‐hip sagittal parameters. We found the matching of PI‐LL in the domestic middle‐aged and elderly LSS population is regulated by thoracic spine and pelvis.

Cervical sagittal alignment in patients with dropped head syndrome

BACKGROUND

Dropped head syndrome (DHS) can be divided into two types, the positive sagittal vertical axis (SVA) type and the negative SVA type. However, the cervical sagittal alignment of DHS including global sagittal spinal alignment and the typical cervical alignment of the types of DHS is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to clarify the character of cervical sagittal alignment of DHS and analyze the relationship between cervical sagittal alignment and global sagittal spinal alignment.

METHODS

The subjects were 35 DHS patients (10 men, 25 women, mean 71.1 years old). They were divided into two groups: negative DHS (N-DHS group, SVA < 0 mm) and positive DHS group (P-DHS group, SVA ≥ 0 mm). As control, 28 age-matched cervical spondylosis patients (CS, 21 men, 7 women, mean 67.4 years old) were analyzed. The following parameters were measured on lateral global-spine standing radiographs: cervical SVA (C2-C7SVA), O-C2A (O-C2 angle), C2 slope (C2S), C2-7A (C2-7 angle), T1 slope (T1S) and C7SVA.

RESULTS

The results of measurements of each of the averaged sagittal alignment parameters were (CS, P-DHS, N-DHS): C2-7SVA(26.2 mm, 47.3 mm, 44.5 mm), O-C2 angle (35.0°, 37.1°, 39.3°), C2S (16.5°, 31.4°, 33.8°), C2-7A (9.3°, 9.9°, -16.6°), T1S (22.9°, 39.7°, 25.7°), C7SVA (35.3 mm, 51.0 mm, -43.1 mm). C2-C7SVA and C2S were significantly larger in both types of DHS compared to CS. Comparing P-DHS with N-DHS, C2-C7A and T1S were significantly smaller in N-DHS.

CONCLUSIONS

O-C2A did not differ significantly among CS, P-DHS and N-DHS. In DHS patients, C2-7SVA and C2S were significantly larger than those of CS regardless of the type of DHS. The typical cervical sagittal alignment of DHS was different between P-DHS and N-DHS. In P-DHS, C2-7A and T1S were larger than those in N-DHS and the imbalance of thoraco-lumbar alignment should be noted.